A redated post.
My first published paper, "Miracles and the Case for Theism" replied to Mackie's treatment of miracles in The Miracle of Theism. I discovered a formal error in Mackie's analysis, which violates the Mackie Revelance Principle. The paper came out in February 1989 International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. And, of course, a follow-up treatment of miracles is on Internet Infidels. Someone who wants to defend Mackie's or Hume's position might want to start by rebutting me in those papers.
Popular Posts
-
This piece, by exapologist, is one that I have been meaning to answer for some time, as one of the primary defenders of an anti-naturalistic...
-
Loftus has given me no real indication that he has studied my argument from reason, or has any understanding of the arguments in MY book. An...
-
For the last couple of months, this has been what the main road through the seminary looked like. It has been with uncertainty and a bit of... -
You ever read something and you know you've been nailed--those thoughts, actions, feelings that we don't like to admit to, well...we... -
John: I have never denied that upbringing has any influence. I suppose my upbringing might have provided a set of initial priors. But when ...
-
Thanks to Jan for posting this. Listening at the Cross: The Seven Last Words of Christ on Vimeo
-
Actually, I'm not sure that the Resurrection is the best-evidenced miracle in the New Testament. Of course, it's the most theologic...
-
S. Luke 18. 31 THEN Jesus took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by th...
-
We are now halfway through Summer Greek. My head has finally stopped spinning around long enough for me to write. Most of us in Greek class ...